John Dourley and God

John Dourley and God

It is my understanding that Dourley does not explain god as a creation of the human mind. Rather, the point that Dourley makes is that notions of god as existing outside the psyche are the result of archetypal expression of which the individual is unaware. This in no way eclipses the existence of god. Rather, it defies the orthodox notion of a transpsychic being by arguing that god is wholly contained in the psyche, albeit the limitless nature of the unconscious. Dourley argues this in his discussion of Jung’s arguments with Martin Buber. While Buber argues that "such a Being must be conceived as existing independently of the psyche" (1995, p 181), Jung points out that Buber’s conclusions are "based on archetypal possession of which Buber remained unaware" (1995, p 183).

The creation of a deity from encounters with archetypes as Buber had done is dubbed by Dourley as the "deity-creating function of the unconscious," a term he uses twice (1995, p 177; 199). Herein lies the possible misinterpretation that Dourley sees Jung as beholding god to be a human creation void of a reality of existence. Dourley points out that religions that live "do so because the founder’s personal experience and imagery are recognized by the collective as meeting its needs" (1995, p177-8). Collective in this case refers to the collective unconscious. The unconscious resolves its needs by influencing individual consciousness, and invariably produces god-creations that partially satisfy its needs although not bringing total fulfillment. In this way, all the religions of the world are explained.

To further illustrate how Dourley’s concept of a "deity-creating function" does not relegate god to a mental creation, consider the ...

... middle of paper ...

...ed life is sustained despite the law of entropy. I offer the arguments of changed consciousness and the idea of growth to show the reality of god beyond our mental creations. It is also important to note that both of these notions are premised on the idea of god existing inside the human psyche, not beyond it. It is my hope that my endeavors at the beginning of the paper have that I am in agreement with Dourley, not opposition. Following my arguments to a logical end, I draw the conclusion that some minds are, in fact, more receptive to the psychically contained god than are others.

Works Cited

Dourley, John P. The religious implications of Jung’s psychology. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 40.

Halligan, Fredrica R. Jungian theory and religious experience. In RW Hood, Jr. (Ed) Handbook of religious experience. Birmingham: Religious Education Press, Inc.